Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,876 Year: 4,133/9,624 Month: 1,004/974 Week: 331/286 Day: 52/40 Hour: 3/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hitler, Evolution, and Christianity
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 9 of 146 (214253)
06-04-2005 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by robinrohan
06-04-2005 10:00 AM


Hitler and natural selection
I maintain that Nazism had within it the idea of natural selection, lifted from Darwinism.
Hitler may have thought he was employing natural selection, he may have thought he got the idea from Darwin. Hitler wasn't employing natural selection, and had Darwin never mentioned natural selection Hitler would probably still have done what he did.
It was known centuries before Darwin's grandad was a lad that you could breed certain characteristics into animals and people. Agriculture and the domestication of animals proved that beyond doubt. Artificial selection (where man sets the parameters of selection) was a totally accepted phenomena (and indeed where Darwin got his idea from in the first place).
Therefore, Hitler actually used the ancient agricultural methods of selective breeding to the extreme. He realized that there was too much risk that the breeding program would be thrown off course by unwanted specimens breeding with his studs. He couldn't erect a fence to keep his studs isolated from the runts, so he killed the runts so they wouldn't contaminate the gene pool
Hitler may have been inspired by Mendel and selective breeding, but he did not practice natural selection. He created environments where only those he deemed worthy of survival would survive, not environments where those most capable of surviving would survive.
We could argue, that the whole thing was an example of natural selection. Hitler had no children, was violent, sociopathic and genocidal. He got selected against.
Is it a perversion of Darwinism? No, its a perversion of breeding techniques used by farmers, falsely credited to Darwin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by robinrohan, posted 06-04-2005 10:00 AM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by MangyTiger, posted 06-04-2005 7:31 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 14 of 146 (214439)
06-05-2005 6:27 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by MangyTiger
06-04-2005 7:31 PM


Re: Hitler and natural selection
Naturally it was simplification. Obviously what fences could be erected were erected...but those fences weren't very adequate.
The elite - namely the SS - were only allowed to marry after the women had been checked to have the correct physical characteristics, ancestry, ideology and so on
You don't have to marry someone before conceiving a child with them.
I think he killed the runts to stop them breeding with themselves (no masurbation jokes please ) rather than with his supposed Aryan supermen.
Whilst that may have some truth - Hitler et al were concerned with the purity of German race. Now the Volk issue has been raised, and I think that has some relevance here, but I don't think that is the only explanation. Would Hitler have been OK if every superman had conceived children with Jews? I imagine he would have killed the Jews and their children. The more Jews in the population, the more 'watered down' the Aryan race became...both in Us vs Them numbers game and in a half-caste kind of way too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by MangyTiger, posted 06-04-2005 7:31 PM MangyTiger has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by ringo, posted 06-05-2005 11:11 AM Modulous has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 70 of 146 (216163)
06-11-2005 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by robinrohan
06-11-2005 10:51 AM


Re: Races
Whilst 'there is none' is about right, that doesn't mean there aren't definitions out there. Answers.com is great for these kinds of things:
An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits.
Its a little (ahem) vague, but its as good as there is I believe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by robinrohan, posted 06-11-2005 10:51 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by robinrohan, posted 06-11-2005 1:26 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 72 of 146 (216171)
06-11-2005 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by robinrohan
06-11-2005 1:26 PM


Re: Races
I suppose there are some. I don't know what, if any, differences the definition of race has with the definition of 'breed' (I appreciate that breed is an artificial thing, wheras race is natural). Perhaps there are species which can interbreed, but don't because of mating ritual variances, or colour pattern clashes...these could be called races.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by robinrohan, posted 06-11-2005 1:26 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by robinrohan, posted 06-11-2005 5:56 PM Modulous has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024